The Burden of Proof is in Pro. If Pro's arguments stand, he wins. Pro's argument is that God's orders are justified, and he is always saying truth, and Obama does also. Con rebuts this argument by saying that not all of Obama's statements were true, some false, and gave two sources. I will not give sources to Con, though, because there is no need to. All of Pro's arguments are refuted by Con, therefore Con wins in arguments point. Pro had a few spelling errors, but does not give any impact to the debate itself. I vote Con.

Feedback: This was a horrible debate, with many bare assertions, and for a troll debate though, Con argued excellently by the short characters. He provided sources, and refuted Con's bad arguments, and I myself had hard to refute vi_spex arguments, because they are too horrible. But because of Pro's horrible performance, the debate was a horrible debate. I know that Pro will never improve, so I wouldn't give any feedback to him, because it is a waste of my time. Vote Con/

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is equal because both sides did debate. Con wins grammar because Pro did not have a grammatical structure in round 1. Con wins arguments for 3 reasons. 1) Con defined God, which Pro should have done having the BOP. 2) Pro agreed to the definition of God, making all arguments based off of it correct. 3) Obama being proven to lie shows Obama is not God. Con wins arguments. Con also wins sources because Con provided a credible source in the form of Politifact. I VOTE CON.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the burden of proof, and must explain how obama fits any definition of God (not just the one definition outlined by Con). Pro says obama hides his power, and God has no reason to demonstrate his power, but did not offer an alternative definition of God. Con explained how obama lies and therefore is not 100% truth like God is. Pro says "God's word is the truth" which just affirms Con's argument.

Reasons for voting decision: BoP. Pro asseted circular reasoning, con pointed out the lack of proof, to which pro inferred that lack of proof is proof. A reason why might be carryable, but nothing was given for weight...